I’ve been exploring both Three.js and Babylon.js for WebGL development. While I understand both engines are powerful and capable, I’ve noticed that many Three.js demos (especially on websites like threejs.org or codepen) tend to look more visually polished and artistic.
Why do Three.js demos often appear to have higher graphical quality or more cinematic feel?
Also, I’d love to know: What are some best practices or techniques to achieve higher graphical quality in Babylon.js?
Maybe it’s because tons of community which many of them created many demos that use further as examples. I think it’s mostly because they focus on collecting such examples. It’s just a different way of working on an engine.
So we are as a part of BJS community can collect our own impressive demos.
I don’t necessarily agree with the premise, however Three.js does have a larger user base and the perception might also be due, in part, to Babylon’s fabulous playground system, which is used extensively for almost all documentation feature demos but does lend itself more to smaller, discreet, rapidly developed demos with a constrained set of public domain assets and primitive geometry. It’s one of Babylon’s greatest strengths, but some might see these playground demos as sub-par in comparison to larger, polished demos (made in either Babylon or Three).
Again, I don’t necessarily agree with the premise though.
I switched from Three to Babylon because it’s TypeScript first, better engineered, more fully featured, committed to backward compatibility and the community is awesome. Mostly, I just got tired of seeing half the official Three.js demos breaking on every new release … although that situation may have changed in recent years (I haven’t looked lately).
The perception that Three.js demos often look more visually impressive than Babylon.js stems from several factors, though both engines are equally capable technically. Here’s why Three.js might appear more striking in many cases:
Community and Creative Culture
Three.js:
Dominates the creative coding and digital art scene. Artists and designers flock to it for experimental projects, leading to more visually daring demos.
Platforms like CodePen, Glitch, and Shadertoy are Three.js-heavy, showcasing eye-catching fragments.
Babylon.js:
More focused on applications (games, enterprise, XR), where functionality often trumps pure visual flair.
Ease of Quick Prototyping
Three.js:
Favors hackability over structure, appealing to demo-makers.
Babylon.js:
More structured (e.g., requires materials, meshes, and cameras to be explicitly defined).
Better for long-term projects.
Documentation and Tutorials for “Wow” Effects
Three.js has countless tutorials for visual tricks:
Babylon.js docs focus more on complete pipelines (e.g., loading models, physics, UI).
Selection Bias
Three.js demos that go viral tend to be artistic/experimental.
Babylon.js excels in complex applications (e.g., Adobe Substance 3D, BMW’s car configurator, industrial simulations), which are less likely to be shared as “demos.”
Built-in Effects vs. DIY
Three.js:
Fewer built-in features → devs hand-roll effects (e.g., custom shaders, creative geometry), which feel unique.
Babylon.js:
Ships with production-ready tools (physics, GUI, PBR materials) → less need for custom code.
Shortly, the difference between Three.js and Babylon.js may be compared with the difference between “Tools in a toolbox” and “Factory assembly line”.
Its an observation, which I had to think over as well while deciding on one of the engines.
Tried out bbl first, didnt move on testing 3.
Well answered above btw.
Bbl offers everything to produce high visual fidelity. Most of the time the content itself is not good enough. Well rendered crap looks well, but its still crap
Best. Werner
